I’m typing this w/ my 15 year old band geek daughter reading over my shoulder.
In the past she has presented speech assignments arguing that dance is a sport.
Of course marching band requires considerable strength, endurance, coordination, and teamwork. But I personally do not consider it a sport. I agree with the comment above that calling something a sport or not does not add or subtract value.
I think this type of discussion arises because of the (IMO) disproportionate attention and resources afforded sport in our schools and society. I think that organizations such as band, orchestra, forensics, and theater are rightfully jealous of the level of resources athletics receive. Moreover, IMO I believe artistic group endeavors may well provide more varied useful experiences that will serve its participants better in their fuutre lives than the purely competitive sports.
So, I might amend the comment above, and say that characterizing something as a sport may detract value from it. In other words, band most certainly is not a sport, and all band geeks should be glad of that fact!
(Note: my daughter disagrees with me, and maintains that she still considers it to be a sport.
They have to do physical warmups like all other sports - such warmups are a required element in competitions.
The band comes off the field breathing as hard and sweating as much as the football team. Moreover, unlike football, no band members ride the bench!
Marchers incur injuries through the performance of their activity.)
I didn’t think I needed to show that masturbation has been a competitive endevour to show that it qualifies as a sport under mrsam’s definition. Hears the definition again with a word italicized:
I interpreted that has meaning “often a ‘sport’ involves competition” not “a ‘sport’ must often have competition”, i.e., I didn’t understand “competition” to be a necessary quality for an activity to be a sport. I mean, there’s lots of people who jog, but don’t participate in races–yet I think they’re participating in a sport. Maybe I’m misunderstanding though–and it’s kind of pointless, just like this amusing little thread that basically boils down to peoples opinions on a hard-to-define word.
It would seem to me that a disciplined runner would already be following his optimum pacing strategy, and that the actions of other runners would not affect it. Why would a runner speed up when seeing an opponent catching up to him?
Some of these definitions of sports seem a little to all-encompassing for me. Can’t something be a competition without being a sport? Are the people on Fear Factor competing in a sport? What about a beauty contest?
I did marching band and foootball. Anyone who thinks they’re working as hard in marching band as in football is deranged. I’ve never seen a tromboner (tee hee!) get mauled by an opposing oboe player.
In my view, there have to be clear rules for WINNING. You can’t normally do the activity without some concept of WINNING. Of cource, it must be physical–my national champion debate team wasn’t made up of athletes.
Music, dance, theatre, cheerleading, etc. are not competitive by nature. Adding an element of competition doesn’t make them sports any more than jamming a bunch of hot dogs down your gullet in two minutes does.
I did marching band and foootball. Anyone who thinks they’re working as hard in marching band as in football is deranged. I’ve never seen a tromboner (tee hee!) get mauled by an opposing oboe player.
In my view, there have to be clear rules for WINNING. You can’t normally do the activity without some concept of WINNING. Of course, it must be physical–my national champion debate team wasn’t made up of athletes.
Music, dance, theatre, cheerleading, etc. are not competitive by nature. Adding an element of competition doesn’t make them sports any more than jamming a bunch of hot dogs down your gullet in two minutes (and calling it a sport) does.
I think that my explanations are a bit confusing. When I say objective I do not mean fool-proof. Something that is objective is not always correct. Of course during a football game human error and judgement will come into play. A referee can wrongly judge that a player did not catch the ball or cross the goal line, but that does not change that fact that there are strict consistent guidelines or rules for assessing points. This I think is the main dividing line between lets say soccer and diving. In diving there is no consistent way to get points, a judge determines how much to give you based on subjective principles. A judge cannot be shown to be wrong, whereas a referee can be shown to be wrong. A robot could not judge an ice skating competition becuase there is no algorithm developed right now to judge one skater’s performance against another. A robot could be used to referee a football game or baseball game according to the written rules of the game. As boxing is now, it would not be a sport according my definition because the scoring is not objective, but boxing scored by CompuBox numbers could be.
In summation I would say that an athletic competition becomes a sport when there are written objective rules for scoring.
It also seems to be a mistake that many people equate athletes with people who play sports, that is not necessarily true. I was in marching band for many, many years. Marching band is definately an athletic activity, but it is not in my opinion a sport. Gymnasts and divers are amazing atheletes who do great feats of skill and precision, but IMHO, they do not compete in a sport.
If you have play football five seconds at a time, for a total of 25 minutes playing time, in between resting for 45 seconds between plays, or sitting down for ten minutes at a time, then it is a sport.
If you have to wave pom poms, play orchestra, do pyramids, tumbling runs and shouts to pump up the crowd while standing for three hours straight, then it is not a sport.
You’re obviously have never been on a band bus or at band camp.
I’ve done marching band for the past seven years of my life and it is a great time, but it isn’t a sport. While some bands (like my current one) do do some running it still doesn’t make it a sport. Sports and are like pornography: you know it when you see it. As demonstrated in this thread one man’s David is another man’s Hustler.
I’m another who has done both marching band and traditional sports, and I don’t think for a second marching band is a sport. It is what it is. It’s a lot of fun, hard work, I had a great time doing it, learned a lot, and so on. But don’t kid yourself. It’s a sport the same way chanting at a football game is good musical training.
Does it matter? The only two reasons I can think of to try to shoehorn marching band into the “sport” category are a) the belief that “sports” are superior to aesthetic competitions, and b) to qualify for better funding.
While I can see the necessity (having been in marching band myself) for (b), I find (a) to be somewhat pitiful.
Yes, this is correct. So what? Just because one is a sport and the other is not, doesn’t mean that the sport one is “better” or “harder” or anything. It just is.
If you are the matured ovary of a flower, containing the seed, you are a fruit. You may be dry and tasteless and wormy and disgusting, but you’re a fruit.
If you’re another part of a plant, you’re a vegetable. Even if you’re very juicy and tasty and not even green, you’re still a vegetable, because you lack the essential characteristic of a fruit. That doesn’t mean all fruits are better than you, or that you don’t have any merits of your own. For one thing, you’re more nutritious. You may even have many qualities shared by fruits. But you’re a vegetable. It’s simply a matter of definitions.
Did marching band all 4 years in high school. It counted as PE credit, because we did LOTS of physical work. Marching properly in a band is tough, hard work that requires dedication.
But it’s not a sport. That’s not a bad thing, though, because I think most sports suck. Just look at baseball - booooooring!
Organized competition, with no purpose other than the competition itself
Strict rules
Objective goals
Two opponents in the field of play at the same time
No part of a football gameplan involves getting the fans pumped for the halftime show.
People who say that marching band teaches better teamwork than football need to buy a clue.
Subjective scoring eliminates the sports label. This does indeed disqualify boxing. But then again, boxing is obviously not a sport, as a boxing match would never be referred to as a game. It also disqualifies:
Much of the Olympics
Ski jumping
Ice skating
Being a sport is not about showcasing skills, athletic talent, or teamwork. Sports employ skills, athletic talent, and teamwork in the endeaor of head to head competition. As in, we are both on the field. If my side gets off the field so your side can perform, then we are about as far away from being a sport as you can get.
My thoughts on this were evolving as I read the thread…currently this is where I stand:
Two elements must be present for an activity to be considered a sport:
Competition with opposing players/teams must exist, with a final score determing the victor.
If the way the activity is performed is drastically different when the element of competition is introduced, it is a sport. Otherwise, it is not a sport. For example…you may skate around a rink and shoot pucks at a net by yourself, but when another team enters the arena, their actions directly affect yours. Also, football, soccer, baseball, etc. Golf and bowling…you might as well just be playing by yourself…your scores are just compared to how another person did in what amounts to an individual activity.
An objective rule for keeping score must be in place. I really liked the approach an above poster took regarding robot judges and algorithms. If it couldn’t be scored accurately by a computer, not a sport.
Of course, I’m not sure what this means for NASCAR…
Last week I read an article in the Daily Illini (my school newspaper) about the definition of sports. He was arguing that rowing is not a sport, and the definition that he gave for a sport was something along the lines of “an athletic competition in which defense is actively applied.” This, to me, is a great definition. YOu get all the traditional sports included, and the other pseudo-sports such as cheerleading and bowling aren’t included. I’ve found that most people who’ve played a sport such as soccer or basketball will tend to agree that with that definition, but participants of the pseudo-sports disagree. Just because something isn’t a sport doesn’t make it worse, it’s just in a different category.
Anyone who says that Marching Band is less of a sport than the PML, is deranged! For 3 Months, we have practice for an hour and a half at 6:00 in the morning, and 2 weeks of Marching outside 8 hours a day, (That is just High School) After school rehearsals, and Thursday night rehearsals, etc… If you include football as a sport, you have to include Marching Band…
Btw, Can’t get it as P.E. credit anymore… Only reason to claim that it is a sport is to get the FUNDING, and recognition of the sports.
Why are you ressurecting old threads? I read through the first page getting ready to repost my opinion, when lo and behold I run across my opinion from last year here on page 2. That’s not cool. Friendly piece of advice: Start a brand new thread and include a link to the old thread, if you feel you must directly respond to a specific post, which you didn’t even do.
But let’s look at your definition of a sport. Anything that requires a lot of practice. Yeah, you really hit it out of the park on that one. So woodworking is a sport, and so is a medical practice.
Look, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, if you don’t have the opponent in the field of play actively defending against you, it ain’t a sport. To further narrow it down, if the winner is determined by subjective scoring, it also isn’t a sport.
